Lost DisneyMovie.com

[Lew]

"The idea that "DisneyMovie.com" (as you capitalized the letters in the subject line) does not have a direct relationship to the goodwill owned by Disney in making movies is ridiculous."

Did I say there was "no direct relationship"? Can you show me that?

Of course there is a direct relationship "duh" - why the hell do you think I picked the name up in a drop? Direct relationship does not = that they have the right to every name each time their mark is used in a name. That is my opinion. There are many cases won that agree with my opinion, and many that agree with yours.

Doesn't make you right, doesn't make me wrong. Besides - I don't recall asking you to join in our disagreement - oh wait! - I forgot that that is how you guys make money - getting in the middle of an arguement and siding with the side with the most money

 

[Lew]

Dropper - I would bet you have other names besides the ones on your site but I can't prove it so why bother trying. We can just go to the ones you have listed.

"PDA" is in one of your names - a term that is TM'd many times. Is one of those TM's yours? If it is not, then by your own argument your are using someone elses TM to profit off of and should be lashed and lose the name. It takes your argument out to its natural extension.

I really don't have much more time to waste arguing with you guys - you have your opinion and others have theirs - just don't act like you are some sort of moral crusaders (especially from lawyers). Those glass houses you are in seem rather conspicuous to me.

 

[namedropper]

PDA, as an acronym for Personal Digital Assistant, is a generic term for handheld organizers and computers. It also has other meanings, including "public displays of affection." It can be used in any of those ways without violating anyone's trademarks. Disney, on the other hand, is not a generic term by any stretch of the imagination.

Further, even if someone out there has a trademark using the letters PDA for some purpose, I've never heard of it. It certainly wouldn't qualify as a famous trademark. Disney is the kind of trademark that is known around the world and thus has even greater restrictions on use -- not that it matters in your case since it is such a clear cut violation.

If you're going to try to debate something, please get educated on the basics of what's being discussed first.

 

[Lew]

"PDA, as an acronym for Personal Digital Assistant, is a generic term for handheld organizers and computers"

Wow - what a great argument! Very generic - just like TGIF, WWF, WOW etc. PDA is quite well known and it is a TM and the letters are anything BUT a "generic term" - I can see you like to sound important and knowledgable but your glass house is in itsy pieces at the moment - you are profiting off of someone elses TM -plain and simple - lashings begin at 9pm est.


BTW -
Disney stands for "Disco Is Sexy Not Everyone Yearns" there you go - quite generic by your argument and thus I am safe.

Thanks for all the DN bucks also.

Can we be friends now

 

[Tippy]

But you where sure that it was a lost cause fighting for these names, thus you knew you where in the wrong right from the beggining, we're just agreeing with you.

Mike

 

[Lew]

Bring on the whole dang chatroom - my fingers are warmed up!


"I don't believe Disney has any right to the NON word "disneymovie" but I am also not willing to fight them because they will probably win anyway."

I said that it was futile to fight them - not that I believed I was wrong - although I am not completely convinced I am right so maybe a few more negative posts from my peers may sway me.

Can anyone else help out here?

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Lew
PDA is quite well known and it is a TM and the letters are anything BUT a "generic term"

I guess you are resorting to making up your own definitions for words now, because PDA is as generic of a term as you can get, both legally and in the conventional sense.

But then I suppose if you think DisneyMovie isn't a trademark it's not surprising that you don't know what generic means.

 

[jberryhill]

"Direct relationship does not = that they have the right to every name each time their mark is used in a name. That is my opinion. There are many cases won that agree with my opinion, and many that agree with yours."

I think you are missing my point. Saying that it is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which they have rights is only ONE of THREE criteria under the UDRP. In this instance, that one point, which is the only one this discussion has really addressed, is pretty much a no brainer, and you tend to agree with that.

As to "why the hell do you think I picked the name up in a drop?" you haven't really described much about that question.

I'm guessing you don't know very much about me at all, considering your comments about what motivates lawyers. I certainly worked for the side with less money in the mercedesshop.com dispute, which we won.

But we certainly wouldn't have won by arguing that mercedesshop.com has nothing to do with the Mercedes trademark - indeed, it is a direct reference to the Mercedes trademark, because the entire subject matter of the website relates to Mercedes products.

But it seems you are confusing the issue of the presence of a trademark with being entitled to transfer of the domain name. We seem to agree that Disney has a strong trademark interest in movies, and that "DisneyMovie" is a reference to movies originating with Disney. That is a far cry from saying they have no rights in a "non-word". Of course their rights are an issue - the question of whether you were violating them is still open on the basis of the facts you've presented so far.

So Mickey says to the judge, "Your honor, I didn't say she was insane..."

 

[Lew]

I said she was ****ing Goofy!

 

[jberryhill]

Dang, it's taken:

Domain Name.......... *******goofy.com
Creation Date........ 2000-03-29
Registration Date.... 2000-03-29
Expiry Date.......... 2004-03-29
Organisation Name.... Names For Sale LLC
Organisation Address. 7457 Riverside Dr.

I'd like to see Disney UDRP that one.

 

[Lew]

I am a CPA from NY. (We are a bit snobbish sometimes)

I really don't know anything about you and I apologize for making broad accusations about your profession. You guys are easy targets for stuff like that

There are certainly good lawyers around and since I really don't know you, I shouldn't group you with the bad ones.

I am sure that I am not up on the law like you are - I should know better than to argue domain law with a domain lawyer - but it was fun anyway.

I need to go spend some DN dollars now - what kind of legal service can I get for 979 DN dollars?

 

[jberryhill]

"I am a CPA from NY. (We are a bit snobbish sometimes)

I really don't know anything about you and I apologize for making broad accusations about your profession. You guys are easy targets for stuff like that "

Don't worry. Arthur Andersen used to occupy two floors of the building where I work. We are familiar with you accountant types and your ethics.

Heh.

What kind of service can you GET? Son, you already OWE me 200 dnforum bucks.

 

[think]

:laugh:

 

[zouzas]

Originally posted by jberryhill
Pointing out that someone's view of reality has no connection with the law is hardly a matter of moral judgment. If you post here, you will get opinions, whether they are ones you wanted or not.

The idea that "DisneyMovie.com" (as you capitalized the letters in the subject line) does not have a direct relationship to the goodwill owned by Disney in making movies is ridiculous.

Explain disneycard.com?

Well, let's see, someone has disneymovie.com and they also have disneycard.com. Gee, you wouldn't think there was some kind of pattern there, would you?

Gee, whaddya know, Disney offers a service called "D-Cards" http://psc.disney.go.com/guestservices/8580.html#8580

They also offer a branded Visa credit card:


while everyones on movies disney owns both movie.com and movies.com i bought on resale movie.us and movies.us i just closed on them and the site should be live a couple of weeks along with entertainment.us and pictures.us,,,,,,but any way i think movies is generic and even if trademarked i would say they would not have any case due to the extent such a genric word is used ,,,could anyone comment on this i appreciate any comments,,,,,,,,

 

[jberryhill]

"movies" is certainly generic for movies.

 

[zouzas]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"movies" is certainly generic for movies.

thankyou very much for the reply,,,

 

[namedropper]

And, as no one is surprised to see, Disney easily won Disneymovie.com and DisneyCard.com:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/145227.htm

 

[hiOsilver]

Originally posted by Lew
Bring on the whole dang chatroom - my fingers are warmed up!


"I don't believe Disney has any right to the NON word "disneymovie" but I am also not willing to fight them because they will probably win anyway."

I said that it was futile to fight them - not that I believed I was wrong - although I am not completely convinced I am right so maybe a few more negative posts from my peers may sway me.

Can anyone else help out here?

Lew,

You are making a real fool of yourself here. You are arguing against John Berryhill, one of the foremost experts in the field where you lost by default. Give it up man. Why don't you get off your tantrum and read what John and the others on this forum are saying to you. You got away with making money off of Disney for a while. Now move on.

 

[Lew]

Dropper - If you were paying attention, my first post said that I LOST the name.

Hiosilver - thanks for that expert commentary - this thread couln't have survived without that thoughtful and nicely articulated insight you gave above. I was stuck on this and now I can move on.

I appreciate the extra DN bucks as I will need them to hire Mr Berryhill to defend all my other possible highjackings

 

[timechange.com]

The joke about Mickey and Minnie was the best part